The Constitutional Authority of the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU)

Those now seeking to challenge the DKU's 17 April decision may bring it to court. The courts have seen this argument before. They were not persuaded then.

May 03, 2026

In an opinion piece published in Free Malaysia Today, Edy Noor Reduan, Deputy Head of Information for PKR¹ Negeri Sembilan argued that the Dewan Keadilan dan Undang (DKU) has been challenged in court five times between 1984 and 2018, at every level of the Malaysian judiciary. All disputes brought to these courts failed to change the DKU's decisions.

The cases span the Federal Court (1984), the Court of Appeal (1998), and the High Court (2005, 2012, and 2018). What is ironic is that one of those five cases was itself a dispute over the legitimacy of the Undang of Sungei Ujong, which at the time was resolved in favour of Mubarak Dohak, on the basis of DKU confirmation. The mechanism that confirmed him back then is the same mechanism that is removing him now.

The Constitutional Architecture

The legal framework underpinning the DKU’s authority is not obscure. It is grounded in the Negeri Sembilan’s State Constitution. The DKU functions as an advisory body on matters relating to Malay customs and traditions, including the appointment and removal of the four Undang Luak, as provided under Article 16 of the Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Sembilan (UUTNS).

Article 16(3) is unambiguous: the DKU’s acknowledgement on the election or removal of any Undang is final and cannot be questioned in any court on any grounds. Meanwhile, Article 71 of the Federal Constitution reinforces this, directing that disputes concerning a state's constitution must be resolved according to that state's own constitution, making the UUTNS the operative document.

Apart from those under Article X, an Undang can be removed from office in accordance with applicable customs, a matter which falls under the authority of the DKU. In other words, the DKU’s acknowledgement is final by constitutional design and no external body can unwind that decision.

As Edy writes:

“Such is the supremacy of the DKU: a decision that cannot be challenged.”

Why the Menteri Besar Is Not “Interfering”

One of the more persistent claims from the Undangs and UMNO is that Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun has overstepped by taking a position on what is a customary matter. Edy addresses this directly: if the DKU’s decision is final and unchallengeable under the constitution, and if the state government is constitutionally obliged to operate within that framework, then recognising the DKU’s decision is not interference in adat. It is, in fact, compliance with it.

Courts are generally reluctant to intervene in matters such as this, and the situation is complicated by the removal of one Undang, as the DKU is chaired by the ruler. Constitutional expert Bastian Pius Vendargon has noted that any invocation of Article X’s removal powers requires strict compliance with constitutional safeguards, including a complete inquiry and the rules of natural justice. None of that process was observed in the 19 April declaration.

Can the DKU’s Authority Be Circumvented?

The contention that the DKU’s authority can be circumvented is not untested. It has been tested, by parties with resources and legal representation, across four decades and three levels of the Malaysian judiciary. The record is unambiguous.

Those now seeking to challenge the DKU's 17 April decision may bring it to court. But the courts have seen this argument before. They were not persuaded then. There is no reason to believe they will now.

Footnote:

¹Edy Noor Reduan holds a senior communications role in Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Negeri Sembilan, the party of Menteri Besar Aminuddin Harun. It is one of Malaysia's major federal governing coalition parties, currently part of the Pakatan Harapan (PH) coalition led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is also PKR's president. Readers should weigh his analysis with that affiliation in mind. That said, his core legal arguments, particularly on the finality of DKU decisions under Article 16(3) and the record of failed court challenges, are corroborated by independent constitutional lawyers including Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and are consistent with the plain text of the UUTNS.